beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On June 12, 2005, D, who runs a business with the trade name called "A", prepared a cash custody certificate to pay 45,000,000 won to the Plaintiff for the goods price obligations owed to the Plaintiff after being supplied with pipes, joint plates, etc. from the Plaintiff who runs a business selling materials in the trade name called "E", and issued it to the Plaintiff by June 30, 2006. The Defendant signed the cash custody certificate.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, as a joint and several surety, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 45,000,000, which is the debt owed to the plaintiff, and damages for delay.
B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the above claim against D was extinguished by prescription after the lapse of five years from June 30, 2006, and that the above joint and several several liability obligation of the defendant was extinguished in accordance with the law of the father's nature.
In addition, Article 47(1) of the Commercial Act provides that “the act performed by a merchant on behalf of its business shall be deemed as a commercial activity,” and Article 47(2) of the Commercial Act provides that “the act performed by a merchant on behalf of its business shall be presumed to be performed on behalf of its business,” and thus, a claim arising from an act falling under a commercial activity shall constitute a commercial claim to which the five-year statute of limitations under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies.” Such commercial activity includes not only the basic commercial activity falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 46 of the Commercial Act, but also ancillary commercial activity performed by its merchant on behalf of its business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1381, Apr. 27, 2006).” Thus, it is presumed that the act performed by a merchant on behalf of its business is performed on behalf of its business.”